Here's your quick recap on the E. Jean Carroll affair. In 2019 Carroll claimed that Donald Trump had raped her in a dressing room a couple of decades ago. Trump denied it and said a bunch of nasty things about her, so she sued him for defamation. She won and was awarded $5 million, but Trump kept right on repeating his lies. So she sued him again and the trial is now underway.
So what's his defense? Among other things, his lawyer suggested today that Carroll had benefited from Trump's slander:
Alina Habba concluded her cross-examination by suggesting that E J Carroll had not suffered because of Donald Trump’s comments — didn’t she have opportunities like having a Substack and TV appearances? Was she making more money? Was she better known?
“So, your reputation in many ways is better today isn’t it Ms Carroll?” said Habba.
What else? Well, Trump's lawyers have also suggested Carroll is a perv (she writes a sex advice column) and that all the threats and backlash she received had nothing to do with Trump. Rather, they were all from people who already hated her.
Pretty desperate, eh? But what can they do? Trump has already been found liable for sexual abuse, battery, and defamation, so those are no longer up for question. And obviously Trump said the stuff he said. What choice do his attorneys have aside from throwing mud on the walls and giving Trump a stage to mutter and roll his eyes?
This article seems to be a stub, missing a headline and anything after the colon.
I accidentally published it during lunch! It's finished now.
Aha! Much better now ^-^
Can't agree with you on this one, KD.
We don't know that Trump did this.
Her "evidence" is that Trump is a lowly character---ergo he must be guilty. THat's an argument, not evidence.
If he is innocent, as I believe, he should be able to defend and deny the claim and he should be able to attack her as a false accuser.
The jury got it wrong.
You are responding to the 1st trial. Trump LOST.
This is a 2nd trial. Trump absolutely kept right on lying after losing in court and didn't even slow down on the slander. That is all public record because put it out there himself.
Alas no, the jury are the finder of fact, so by definition they got it right. You, I'm afraid, have it wrong.
But I understand about cults: to deny the Truth of the Leader is to deny oneself, and that is anathema. So rest easy: you Belong.
The court and a jury of his peers heard all the arguments and looked at all the evidence and decided he was guilty of defaming her.
You appear to be ignoring that, which is of a piece with what happened after the last election. Trump had his day in court. He had his day in many, many courts, where they all looked at the evidence and they all deciced that Trump didn't have any evidence to back up his claims.
This is the point at which most people walk away. But if you're Trump, or a Trump supporter, you feel you have somehow got a better grip on the situation than all those judges and jurors.
This is a foundational problem for the basis of this country, which is "a jury of one's peers" is as good a hearing as anybody ever gets. If you're going to insist on having a higher knowledge, that makes you an enemy of the United States of America and everything it stands for.
Given the growing number of people who were sentenced to death or life in prison in a jury trial and have recently been exonerated and freed, I'm surprised at this post. Each of those victims of miscarriages of justice had their days in court. The jury decision was wrong.
I hate Donald Trump with the heat of 1000 suns and I believe that our criminal justice system, while flawed, often gets it right. But continuing to claim innocence after a jury trial is also a foundational right. And sometimes it is right.
He can claim he is innocent like a lot of other convicted people do, but that does not give him the right to defame her.
Exactly.
Of course.
the irony is that trump isn't willing to extend the same consideration to others
this is the man who took out a full page ad in the nyt to call for the execution of five innocent people
i'm sure trump is getting a lot better treatment by the judicial system than they did; if republicans think trump's treatment is too harsh let them change the laws for everyone so we all benefit
but it's obvious what they really want is special rules for rich conservatives (ie., the law protects, but does not bind)
Fully understand what you are saying here but:
This isn’t the criminal justice system, it’s civil court. Trump is in no danger of imprisonment. As you know, the standard of evidence in civil court is much lower than in criminal court. Whatever happened in the civil court convinced the jury to a preponderance of evidence that he assaulted her.
The civil court is also often flawed. Trump has ruthlessly used the civil court against others, mainly service providers when he decided not to pay them. I’m sure you are aware of this.
Trump is a man who knows the value of a forceful denial. Most of us are not accustomed to people lying with the fervor of Trump and tend to give credence to such a denial. But Trump has shown himself to be just as forceful and sure of himself when he is lying. It is impossible to know when and if he is telling a truth. Whatever he says is absolutely true to him.
Trump has bragged about treating women the way he treated Ms Carroll. Other women have indicated he did much the same thing to them. There are likely many more. Trump’s ability to set his running dogs against anyone who speaks out against him is very likely to have a chilling effect on people he has likewise attacked.
He is using this case to help him get elected and to raise money. His antics in court are theater.
Reminds of what a superior court judge said to me when I said the Dan White jury got it wrong. You were not on the jury. You did not hear the testimony. You did not hear the judge's charge to to jury. You don't know shit!
"The jury got it wrong" In reality, there was a trial, there was evidence (your claim of what the evidence was is entirely the result of you being a bald face liar) and after being presented with the actual evidence and witness testimony, the found it was proven that Trump sexually assaulted the women.
Estoppel. End of argument.
Let's be clear here. Carroll testified quite specifically to being sexually assaulted by Trump. Trump didn't take the witness stand to deny it. He had the opportunity to "defend and deny" and chose not to take that opportunity. I don't think the jury could rationally have reached a different verdict.
What you believe has nothing to do with it.
Why do people keep saying "sexual abuse" instead of "sexual assault"? Seems I've seen/heard this quite a few times.
What;s the difference?
Assault in this case is a narrower, more severe charge. Abuse could just be calling names, unwanted touch.
It has been hypothesized elsewhere that he and his minions know perfectly well that they lost before and they're losing again (because their behavior is very likely to increase the award against him), but they are flagrantly disrespecting the court and the law generally (note here the conspicuous silence from all the pious "rule of law" Republicans) because their intent is actually to undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings AND the law generally. That is, the jury before AND this jury AND the court in this case are ALL part of the Great Librul Conspiracy to take down the Maximum Leader, along with all the OTHER Grand Juries and trial juries and courts and prosecutors and that brown woman clerk in New York and probably all the bailiffs too, and that's because the entire system is CORRUPT and must be overthrown, and the only hope for America is to install Trump as dictator and let him clean things up.
Now I'm not quite sure I agree it's that well thought out. I think Kaplan is right about Trump just not being able to control himself, and there's no question that Habba is a world-class fool. But I think they're probably right about the reaction by the Cult.
Habba isn't a fool, just a mercenary.
But she’s very obviously not an experienced trial lawyer or a particularly skilled cross-examiner. I think she’s basically a spokes-model.
Good one.
Yeah, it seems obvious why Trump hired her and it wasn't for her sterling track record.
That Trump's lawyers would be forced into making desperation arguments is rather expected, more amusing are the legal commentators observations on the procedural incompetence of Ms Habba as she bumbles her way towards a mega loss (versus the possibility of just a loss).
Her professional humiliation in front of other lawyers is rather more amusing (the line of attack of benefit is one of the least questionable things, that at least conceptually as a hail mary has some sense if well executed. Her incompetence in basic procedure, well I suppose it's in keeping with Trump world).
I agree that she’s not an experienced trial lawyer and she’s also very obviously unprepared to do basic things like getting evidence in. But, the judge gave her unbelievable leeway in her cross examination of qthe plaintiff. He seems to have lost control of the trial and/or he’s decided to give Trump a do-over of the first trial.
As I said above, Habba is not an experienced trial lawyer. Neither is she skilled at cross examination. But her strategy is obvious to me: she’s arguing in favor of a do-over of the first trial and the judge seems strangely amenable to it. It’s the only hope for Trump to dodge another $5 million plus verdict.
On redirect: "Ms. Carroll, has the notoriety and earnings of being libeled, and slandered, compensated for being libeled and slandered?"
Follow up q: "Ms. Carroll, should people follow opposing counsel's advice and slander and libel her for her benefit?"
I suspect that any servant of Trump is basically a “libel-proof” plaintiff.
They're...."exceptional."
What can the attorneys do? They can quit, save what's left of their reputations, and (possibly) avoid disbarment for frivolous motions.
Apparently there’s neither permanent damage to a lawyer’s reputation nor his or her livelihood caused by representing Trump in the most extremely inappropriate or improper way imaginable. To date, while a couple have problems with some few bar associations or have pled guilty, none have actually suffered any serious consequences. Even Rudi hasn’t been disbarred. And the two who plead guilty in Georgia received a slap on the wrist.
None of Trump's lawyers have yet come close to "the most extremely inappropriate or improper way imaginable". They've crossed a lot of lines but, as the old saying goes, things could be worse.
Headline "Trump’s latest trial has turned into a clown show"
should be
"Trump’s a clown show"